Great Britain on Monday sent warships to the Mediterranean and weighed legal action against Spain in a territorial dispute over the Gibraltar peninsula, as Madrid threatened to join with Argentina in a U.N. effort to strip Britain of the last remnants of its empire.

In London, Ministry of Defense officials told the BBC that the Royal Navy deployments are part of a long-planned military exercise and not connected to the three-centuries old dispute over the Gibraltar enclave.

The feud between the European allies has erupted anew in recent weeks amid Spanish protests over an effort to create an artificial reef offshore.

Britain claims that Spain has illegally tightened border and customs controls in an effort to sabotage the tourist industry on the peninsula.

What's with Great Britain and the delusion of itself as some global player, unmatched naval power, desperately clinging to the remnants of what once was the British Empire at its most expansive?

Forget that its military, naval forces have been pared to the bone and beyond not being able to afford the most basic of military expenditures, as far as England is concerned tradition trumps realism, pragmatism as the misguided perspective of British foreign policy that guides its priorities to spend billions of dollars maintaining the far-flung remnants of wilderness and desolation it desperately feels the need to hold on to as the moral equivalent of slavery and the vanity that drives them to challenge every attempt by sovereign nations to claim what is rightfully theirs. In the halcyon days of England's overwhelming naval power, these sovereign nations had no choice but to accede to the demand of British expansionism and imperialism. Might makes right, and until the modern era where England can not nearly achieve a militarily-potent force it has no business holding on to sovereign nation's territory illegally usurped by intimidation and military intervention.

The Falklands War, if ever a pointless exercise in brinkmanship there ever was, its legacy of untold dead soldiers in an effort to salvage is national honor, hegemony, in exchange for some lifeless strip of land thousands of miles away, demonstrates the manner in which Great Britain today still sees itself as the glorious empire of yesteryear of which the sun having set upon it long ago. Despite all that, England can boast of the proud stewardship remaining responsible for a chain of desolate islands with no strategic attributes, situated within close proximity of the South Pole.

All I can muster is to say is "Hail, Britannica" in sarcasm and cynicism.

And now England is off again on an ill-advised, misguided mission to retain Gibraltar, again,probably at all costs. The difference is that this time it is NATO it is going to have to deal with and not some banana-republic triumvirate. But national pride makes nations o things it usually ends up regretting and England's traditions, institutions are burnished into the British psyche, not easily abandoned.

When it comes to its national interests, traditions, institutions Britain can be a very entrenched, stubborn entity.

Take its adoration of the British Monarchy. Its support of the slacker parasites that sponge off the British people that comprise the British Monarchy in all its inglorious, self-validating pointlessness has wseven in 10 Britons believing the monarchy is good for the country and only 22 percent support abolishing the institution, a poll released Friday found.

Americans understand the mentality in which its royal subjects are infatuated with the aggrandizement in which the institution of the Monarchy is so beloved, in a manner not unlike America's own infatuation with Royalty in the guise of the worship of the couple that would be Camelot, Barack and Michelle as America's First Couple accorded the same sense of fealty and subservience on Obama, as the President King and the gracious Lady Michelle, as Bizarro doppleganger to England's Queen. Michelle's arrogance, who believes herself as inheritor of the 'divine right of kings' hasn't been witnessed since the words "Qu'ils mangent de la brioche",Let them eat cake, was invoked over three hundred years ago.

The Monarchy is the British people's own unique vice, that despite outlasting its usefulness nevertheless adds a sense of decorum, class and grace to the British national character, that America with its pseudo-elite black trash version of white trash can, will never emulate.

Last I heard, the inhabitants of that place voted in mass to remain with the UK. Better to stick with the wishes of those people, than to let the money-hungry socialists steal the place through UN sanction.

As much as I despise all players involved in these disputes (all socialist hellholes), Gibraltar is rightfuly the property of the UK.

I for one am SICK of this Palestinian-eque new fad of trying to rewrite history. Spain’s monarchy signed Gibraltar over to Britain INDEFINITELY. Spain has NO case whatsoever. The contract was legally binding. That being said, the majority of Gibralatans want to remain part of the UK, and that should be respected.

As for the Falklands, again the historical case is with Britain. Argentina does not have any kind of valid claim, and they lost the war in the 80s.

Lose a war. Get over it.
This is as bad as us whining that the Vietnam War’s outcome should be overturned. Imagine how idiotic that would be.

Britain may have gone soft, but in a military encounter between GB and Spain, or GB and Argentina, or GB vs. Spain and Argentina, my money’s on the Brits.

As for national pride; if the citizens of either country had more than the token of national pride that they exhibit now when a royal couple has a baby, or fireworks hit half price on July 5th, our countries might still be the beacons of the West they once were.

10
posted on 08/12/2013 5:42:12 PM PDT
by ThomasSawyer
(Democratic Underground: Proof that anyone can figure out how to use a computer.)

Okay, I concur. But it in no way does your comment change any of the points I’ve made about England’s need to return Gibraltar to Spain,if you took the time to read my comments, arguments about England’s hegemony over Gibraltar. The amount of time England has occupied Gibraltar adds nothing to its claim of maintaining the island for itself.

While we had our differences in the Revolutionary War, Britain has since been our ally in two world wars, Korean, Desert Storm, Afghanistan, and Iraq wars. Reagan and Thatcher together brought down the Soviet Communists. The long running alliance is strained now, however, with the comrade we have running things.

“Take its adoration of the British Monarchy. Its support of the slacker parasites that sponge off the British people that comprise the British Monarchy in all its inglorious, self-validating pointlessness has wseven in 10 Britons believing the monarchy is good for the country and only 22 percent support abolishing the institution, a poll released Friday found.”

If you look at the countries' like Spain and Argentina you will find historical precedence for having trampled upon their national dignity and pride that have never been addressed let alone resolved. England, certainly more arrogant and aggressive in flouting international law, because they could, having made an indelible mark on the nations they did with as they pleased, the history of which is made part of the nation's identity passed on from generation to generation.

While the facts of England's having flouted international law with impunity, the facts remain obscure and not known as well as they should.

Like some old, volatile domestic dispute that remains just beneath the surface, the slightest provocation will have the details come flooding back with abandon.

And in times of a nation's crisis the same phenomena can occur with countries under economic, political duress will cause similar phenomena.

Have you researched the details in which England took Gibraltar from Spanish hegemony? It's not pretty, that remains very much on the minds of the citizenry like some pulsating, deep-seated wound that never leaves their psyches.

Ask an American Indian wherever you might find one, how he feels about what happened hundreds of years ago of what the Europeans did to the Indian nation (despite the innumerable casinos granted.

These is exactly the way countries victimized by England, including Spain /Gibraltar feel, despite England being in control of Gibraltar for as long as they did. All very true. These issues are deeply imbedded within the psyche of countries like Spain and Argentina, their natiojnal hono such as Spain ado come up during national crises that otherwise remain dormant

And now England is off again on an ill-advised, misguided mission to retain Gibraltar, again,probably at all costs. The difference is that this time it is NATO it is going to have to deal with and not some banana-republic triumvirate.

Really? The major current NATO operation is Afghanistan. The UK has 9000 troops there Spain has 1305. Who is it in NATO's interest to back?

19
posted on 08/12/2013 6:42:59 PM PDT
by Oztrich Boy
(Rules are for the guidance of wise men and the blind obedience of fools - Solon, Lawmaker of Athens)

The role of the Monarchy is critical to the constitutional governance of the United Kingdom. If the monarchy did not exist, there would be very little to stop a British government turning into a tyranny in short order. There’s a reason why support for abolishing the Monarchy tends to come from the left wing in Britain.

To abolish the Monarchy and still maintain reasonable checks and balances on the powers of Parliament, would require a completely new British constitution. Who would write it? David Cameron? Nick Clegg? Tony Blair? Gordon Brown? Look at who is leading the country - there aren’t any Jeffersons there. America managed to create a successful republic because it had genius patriots who had risked all to do it. Many more republics have failed, because they did not have that.

The Monarchy contributes about five to ten times as much to the national economy as it receives in funding, just by virtue of the incomes of the Crown Estate being given to the treasury (before even considering things like tourist value), so it isn’t a cost to the people. In terms of them being parasites, there are currently eleven Princes of the United Kingdom alive. Two of these are a baby and a small child, leaving nine who have reached adulthood. Eight of that nine have served in their country’s military. How many wealthy families involved in America’s government have that type of record of service - and that’s just one type of service?

In terms of the Falklands, 255 British servicemen were killed fighting that war that successfully recovered a British possession that had been invaded and seized, and which was full of people who wanted to be British. The British have now lost 444 soldiers in Afghanistan with far less tangible results, fighting a war they entered to support your nation when it was attacked. I’m not saying it was not worth it - you don’t measure such things in casualties - but I really wonder how you dare to criticise their sacrifice to protect their own.

When it comes to Gibraltar, Britain has twice offered Gibraltans the chance to choose to become part of Spain in referendums. Both times the citizens of Gibraltar have rejected that offer. Gibraltar has been British for 300 years ceded to Britain under treaties. Would you suggest America give Alaska back to the Russians? Or maybe to Canada as it is, after all, attached to Alaska. Gibraltar is, by the way, about the same distance from Britain as Alaska is from the rest of the United States (nearest point to nearest point).

20
posted on 08/12/2013 6:46:06 PM PDT
by naturalman1975
("America was under attack. Australia was immediately there to help." - John Winston Howard)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.